>>2347727
I never liked Rise of Nations.

>>2347775
Same. The game just doesn’t feel fun to play. Units control and behave so awkwardly

>>2347727
Not in ages but great game

Great soundtrack and can be very comfy to buildup but it gets old fast and all civs play nearly identically. I wish there were less ages (nothing past enlightenment) and more unit types per age.

>>2347727
Played some hilarious multiplayer matches with a couple of friends back in the day.

>>2347727
Played a lot when I was in school. Good times, also loved the Modern era units. Shock infantry my beloved

>>2347727
according to steam the last time I played it was last january

rise of nations had a really cool pseudo-FFA mode that another RTS should copy. basically you got a target player you had to kill, and at the same time another, different player had to kill you, and when you took out your target you got their target.
only thing that sucked was that there was very little protection against just fighting whoever you wanted, you took more attrition damage but that barely seemed to matter.

>>2347727
Shit's great but man, the conquer the world campaign is ass

>>2347727
I am always confused why they only did a handful of historical campaigns. Napoleon was most fun, Cold War was also great, especially espionage missions

File: RoN Sultans.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

What would you all add?
>each city gives market cap for all resources (scaling for small/large/major), making agression more rewarding
>some kind of light melee infantry to turn the infantry triangle into a square
>cavalry doesn't receive attrition until patriotism, to encourage actual raiding
>split Medieval era in two (mostly so the castle can be used for longer) but also for late-antiquity and high medieval split
>add a light infantry unit (as in skirmisher in the enlightment age, as well as the...
>add split Industrial era for a Victorian times, with rifled muskets, a gatling guns, can start gathering Oil. Maybe some kind of railroad feature that sends a very-fast moving transport to a selected city/railroad junction, gets upgraded to highways in atomic era
>Norse civ that goes from Vikings to Caroleans (north europe architecture)
>Portuguese civ but idk how to make different from Spain, Dutch, and Nubians
>Polish civ
>some kind of south Slav and/or Hungarian (who can also be the Austrians)
>eastern Europe architecture for Russians, Polish, and Hungarian/Balkan option
>Brits and Norse receive a more Protestant looking Church during Gunpowder era, Germans, too, if choose President over King
>Chinese share Korean architecture
>Arabian civ with MENA arhcitecture
Spitballing ideas
>Thai or Khmer civ (using South Asian architecture?)
>Indonesian or Malay civ
>Polynesian civ
>Malian or Ghanaian civ
>Cherokee or Missippian civ
>Pueblo or Apache civ
>Gran Columbian and Brazillian civs with a Latin Colonial middle architecture (Aztec, Maya, and Inca can adapt to that set; gain a option to empower infantry or gain cavalry with military tech 2 or 3)
>Mongolian campaign to conquer Eurasia

>>2348754
Honestly, get rid of attrition. It's such a lame mechanic that doesn't encourage anything. The punishment for risking it in early aggression should be that you are crippling your economy for the possibility of damaging the enemy.

Besides that, fix the formations so that units are decent to control. Do it like Age of Empires where collision is removed from formations.

>>2348754
>>Cherokee or Missippian civ
Didn't we get those in the expansion?

>>2348980
>Honestly, get rid of attrition
Spotted a rushing faggot.
Stay mad and stay filtered

>>2348991
>Didn't we get those in the expansion?
We got Lakota and Iroquois. Lakota is fun with the ability to build anywhere on the map but I never really knew how to use that effectively

>>2348637
They could have added individual Europe and Asia maps, especially since the Americas got their own with the New World map

>>2348980
>Honestly, get rid of attrition. It's such a lame mechanic that doesn't encourage anything. The punishment for risking it in early aggression should be that you are crippling your economy for the possibility of damaging the enemy.
Attrition is a real concern in warfare however. Armies aren't completely invincible from the elements. Russia having the attrition bonus for an obvious reason

>>2349506
But to add, I'm thankful that this game doesn't model supply lines and logistics at all. Besides the supply unit you can hire to disable attrition